Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Realistically this situation is hugely common even if people aren't consciously trying to cheat - it is just an instinct. Like I said - it's all about incentive.

Here is the hypothetical situation chess clocks can address - it's more about justice than the game finishing.
It's turn 4 and the guy that went first is up on objectives but is obviously going to get tabled next turn or have 2 turns of free scoring for the opponent - if the game goes to conclusion he will not win.
He knows that he can't win but he also knows that he can win if his next turn lasts 10 minutes - even though his next turn should take 2 minutes (he only has 3 models left) but that is just enough time to prevent the next turn from even being allowed to take place.

And this is why we have judges. You call one over and get a ruling that "it's a legal move on TFG part" or "stop being an and play your turn or be disqualified".

Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running

Spoletta wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


The kind of chess clock rules that ITC wants to introduce are beyond overkill to just have players play faster, they are there to disallow intentional slow playing, but if they are worried about this, then i don't understand why they also don't check every dice and every ruler in there!

Aren't warmachine and inifinity clocks the same way the ITC one is? And people don't seem to have a problem with them, they all just train more to play faster.

I think that you messed something up with the quotes.

In any case, no, they are not the same.

I read to here, when you clearly are wrong, and so I ignored the rest of your post.

Fact, they are the same.

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Realistically this situation is hugely common even if people aren't consciously trying to cheat - it is just an instinct. Like I said - it's all about incentive.

Here is the hypothetical situation chess clocks can address - it's more about justice than the game finishing.
It's turn 4 and the guy that went first is up on objectives but is obviously going to get tabled next turn or have 2 turns of free scoring for the opponent - if the game goes to conclusion he will not win.
He knows that he can't win but he also knows that he can win if his next turn lasts 10 minutes - even though his next turn should take 2 minutes (he only has 3 models left) but that is just enough time to prevent the next turn from even being allowed to take place.

And this is why we have judges. You call one over and get a ruling that "it's a legal move on TFG part" or "stop being an and play your turn or be disqualified".

So what's the point of making rules to deal with slow play if you still have system that allows slow playing and need judge when those judges could just as bloody well did same thing before.

If judgds didn't do their job before what makes you think they do Now?

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Realistically this situation is hugely common even if people aren't consciously trying to cheat - it is just an instinct. Like I said - it's all about incentive.

Here is the hypothetical situation chess clocks can address - it's more about justice than the game finishing.
It's turn 4 and the guy that went first is up on objectives but is obviously going to get tabled next turn or have 2 turns of free scoring for the opponent - if the game goes to conclusion he will not win.
He knows that he can't win but he also knows that he can win if his next turn lasts 10 minutes - even though his next turn should take 2 minutes (he only has 3 models left) but that is just enough time to prevent the next turn from even being allowed to take place.

And this is why we have judges. You call one over and get a ruling that "it's a legal move on TFG part" or "stop being an and play your turn or be disqualified".

So what's the point of making rules to deal with slow play if you still have system that allows slow playing and need judge when those judges could just as bloody well did same thing before.

If judgds didn't do their job before what makes you think they do Now?

It's easier to confirm now.

secretForge wrote:
From the OP

Reemule wrote:


5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

I don't get the point of this rule, anyone have an idea why if two players are playing equally quickly they must dice down 19:59 minutes before the end of the round, seems pretty crazy to me.

Any ideas?

If you go read the article, they did say this point is still in debate. They want to switch it to 5 minutes.

The goal is to have the game end on a turn end. Not the clock dings in dice down and you drop dice in the middle of a game deciding save, or something like that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Realistically this situation is hugely common even if people aren't consciously trying to cheat - it is just an instinct. Like I said - it's all about incentive.

Here is the hypothetical situation chess clocks can address - it's more about justice than the game finishing.
It's turn 4 and the guy that went first is up on objectives but is obviously going to get tabled next turn or have 2 turns of free scoring for the opponent - if the game goes to conclusion he will not win.
He knows that he can't win but he also knows that he can win if his next turn lasts 10 minutes - even though his next turn should take 2 minutes (he only has 3 models left) but that is just enough time to prevent the next turn from even being allowed to take place.

And this is why we have judges. You call one over and get a ruling that "it's a legal move on TFG part" or "stop being an and play your turn or be disqualified".

So what's the point of making rules to deal with slow play if you still have system that allows slow playing and need judge when those judges could just as bloody well did same thing before.

If judgds didn't do their job before what makes you think they do Now?

It's easier to confirm now.

And Judges didn't fix the problem. By the time they found a player, warned them, and got them either DQ'ed (Super rare) or more likely gave up and left said person just screwing up more games for people, the person had already caused the problem. Ohh and Human nature. Generally at events your not talking about faceless pro's from dover. Your talking about Jim you play on Saturdays when no one else comes in. And you in general don't want to DQ him just cause he took a 1/2 hour to deploy 20 Bezerkers.Its a warning. And then you go back later and find out they made it to Turn 3 game time called.

The clock takes that part of the bad guy role. "Sorry Jim, clock says he has 40 minutes, and you have 7. Not much I can do except lets play on Saturday with clocks and see if we can get faster." Its a win/win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

You could. I understand the desire is to have the game end on the end of turns. And that is laudable. I plan to play like I have 10 minutes less. But I was already doing that. Not a big deal.

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Realistically this situation is hugely common even if people aren't consciously trying to cheat - it is just an instinct. Like I said - it's all about incentive.

Here is the hypothetical situation chess clocks can address - it's more about justice than the game finishing.
It's turn 4 and the guy that went first is up on objectives but is obviously going to get tabled next turn or have 2 turns of free scoring for the opponent - if the game goes to conclusion he will not win.
He knows that he can't win but he also knows that he can win if his next turn lasts 10 minutes - even though his next turn should take 2 minutes (he only has 3 models left) but that is just enough time to prevent the next turn from even being allowed to take place.

And this is why we have judges. You call one over and get a ruling that "it's a legal move on TFG part" or "stop being an and play your turn or be disqualified".

Well - lets see how that has actually been working...Oh right...IT HASNT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Realistically this situation is hugely common even if people aren't consciously trying to cheat - it is just an instinct. Like I said - it's all about incentive.

Here is the hypothetical situation chess clocks can address - it's more about justice than the game finishing.
It's turn 4 and the guy that went first is up on objectives but is obviously going to get tabled next turn or have 2 turns of free scoring for the opponent - if the game goes to conclusion he will not win.
He knows that he can't win but he also knows that he can win if his next turn lasts 10 minutes - even though his next turn should take 2 minutes (he only has 3 models left) but that is just enough time to prevent the next turn from even being allowed to take place.

And this is why we have judges. You call one over and get a ruling that "it's a legal move on TFG part" or "stop being an and play your turn or be disqualified".

So what's the point of making rules to deal with slow play if you still have system that allows slow playing and need judge when those judges could just as bloody well did same thing before.

If judgds didn't do their job before what makes you think they do Now?

Really it's more about catching the problem early and making sure the victory goes to the right player.

Plus it's not about making a perfect system - no system is perfect - it's about making a better one. Arguing against chess clocks is kind of like arguing against self driving cars because they had some accidents early in development (but they still drive 99% safer than human drivers).

tneva82 wrote:
Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running

Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.

Kdash wrote:

Clock switching could become an issue – especially for people unfamiliar with them (myself included)

Don't worry about it. It's a big button you get to slap. That's half the fun.

One thing that gets really interesting when players get accustomed to the clock is the way they kind of create a baton to pass over the course of the game. I've had people ship it over to me just to formally give me the opportunity to react to something and there's a neat etiquette there I rather enjoy.

 LunarSol wrote:
there's a neat etiquette there I rather enjoy.

Yet no etiquette for just playing properly without one?
*facepalm*

ValentineGames wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
there's a neat etiquette there I rather enjoy.

Yet no etiquette for just playing properly without one?
*facepalm*

I didn't state or even attempt to imply that.

ValentineGames wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
there's a neat etiquette there I rather enjoy.

Yet no etiquette for just playing properly without one?
*facepalm*

I'm sure he has impeccable behavior without a clock. Others don't clearly. This is about them. Not Him.

I like the idea of a clock but it seems wrong to switch it to the opponent when they're rolling for saves / FNP (cos you're eating into their time and it's beyond their control) but also wrong for them to do it on your clock (cos they can take longer than necessary and waste your clock). So maybe pause the clock for save rolls?

Slashy McTalons wrote:
I like the idea of a clock but it seems wrong to switch it to the opponent when they're rolling for saves / FNP (cos you're eating into their time and it's beyond their control) but also wrong for them to do it on your clock (cos they can take longer than necessary and waste your clock). So maybe pause the clock for save rolls?

No, save rolls have to happen on your time, unless you're out of time, in which case at that point they eat into your opponents time by the nature of fixed end times.

 LunarSol wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
there's a neat etiquette there I rather enjoy.

Yet no etiquette for just playing properly without one?
*facepalm*

I didn't state or even attempt to imply that.

It's more that there is a clear sign of I've switched the clock so you can take action and you actively not taking an action by swapping the clock back. It's positive confirmation, instead of blindly assuming that the other person knows what your upto and will interupt.

Some people will expect you to interupt them to deny, apply a strategum, others will pause, some will ask. The clock being passed is a clear indication of who is waiting for the other player and the player in control. If you throw dice after I've switched the clock well they don't count. So 90% of people beond the learning curve for clock switching clocks probably wont affect the game.
But TO's will have definitive data to ban people for slow playing and clock gaming especially if you catch people playing on their opponents time. But thats still depending on TO's using this new data to ban cheaters

Slashy McTalons wrote:
I like the idea of a clock but it seems wrong to switch it to the opponent when they're rolling for saves / FNP (cos you're eating into their time and it's beyond their control) but also wrong for them to do it on your clock (cos they can take longer than necessary and waste your clock). So maybe pause the clock for save rolls?

How is it beyond their control? They can literally say everyone fails,and pull models. Takes 2 seconds. Or they can roll their saves.

The clock rules are clear, if your the person preforming actions, it should be on your time.

I always had fun calculating how many hits they had, versus wounds, they should cause, and counting out my dice before they even roll. Like if he roll 18 dice, 3+ to hit, Wounds on a 4+, I'd have 6 dice ready to save. And Assuming MEQ, I'd mentally pick the 2 I'm going to pull as casualties.

All that and I've have time to make a remark about if he was rolling hot, or less than hot based off if I needed to save more, or less.

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Of all the problems with chess clocks, this is not one of them. It's your time, if your opponent dropped to 9:59 before handing you your turn, you could just stand there and let your time expire to end the game.

And you absolutely should do this. If they wanted another turn they would have stopped before the 10 minute mark. Their times is theirs to control.

At least this is the argument. In blitz chess if you're 1 move from checkmate but run out of time that's a loss.... this has happened to me.

I would rather see 40k move to a league based format. This way slowplaying isn't a thing because games always have as much time as they need. It would take some serious effort to organize a "United States 40k League" with standardized terrain, missions, etc, but would be really worth it in my opinion. You could have a very exclusive World-Cup style bracket at LVO for the top tier players in the league. Then games have as long as they need. Of course, this would be a huge paradigm shift in how 40k is played and i doubt it will ever happen.

 Marmatag wrote:

Slashy McTalons wrote:
I like the idea of a clock but it seems wrong to switch it to the opponent when they're rolling for saves / FNP (cos you're eating into their time and it's beyond their control) but also wrong for them to do it on your clock (cos they can take longer than necessary and waste your clock). So maybe pause the clock for save rolls?

No, save rolls have to happen on your time, unless you're out of time, in which case at that point they eat into your opponents time by the nature of fixed end times.

If your at a point where he is out of time, why are you still shooting him? Maneuver to get your scores, so you win, and finish the game.

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slashy McTalons wrote:
I like the idea of a clock but it seems wrong to switch it to the opponent when they're rolling for saves / FNP (cos you're eating into their time and it's beyond their control) but also wrong for them to do it on your clock (cos they can take longer than necessary and waste your clock). So maybe pause the clock for save rolls?

No, save rolls have to happen on your time, unless you're out of time, in which case at that point they eat into your opponents time by the nature of fixed end times.

If your at a point where he is out of time, why are you still shooting him? Maneuver to get your scores, so you win, and finish the game.

In general this is probably true. I suppose if the Warlord was still standing, that could potentially be 7-8 points (Last Strike, Slay the Warlord, Kingslayer, Headhunter, Kill this turn).

Normally I would go for something this big earlier in the game but if someone is running out of time they will definitely take steps to protect their WL

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Of all the problems with chess clocks, this is not one of them. It's your time, if your opponent dropped to 9:59 before handing you your turn, you could just stand there and let your time expire to end the game.

And you absolutely should do this. If they wanted another turn they would have stopped before the 10 minute mark. Their times is theirs to control.

I hope it gets move to 5 minutes. Or I hope I play well enough my clock is ahead of yours so I can choose if its time to end the game.

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Of all the problems with chess clocks, this is not one of them. It's your time, if your opponent dropped to 9:59 before handing you your turn, you could just stand there and let your time expire to end the game.

And you absolutely should do this. If they wanted another turn they would have stopped before the 10 minute mark. Their times is theirs to control.

At least this is the argument. In blitz chess if you're 1 move from checkmate but run out of time that's a loss.... this has happened to me.

I would rather see 40k move to a league based format. This way slowplaying isn't a thing because games always have as much time as they need. It would take some serious effort to organize a "United States 40k League" with standardized terrain, missions, etc, but would be really worth it in my opinion. You could have a very exclusive World-Cup style bracket at LVO for the top tier players in the league. Then games have as long as they need. Of course, this would be a huge paradigm shift in how 40k is played and i doubt it will ever happen.

Is there a reason you keep using blitz chess as a comparison when the two games aren't remotely comparible?

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Of all the problems with chess clocks, this is not one of them. It's your time, if your opponent dropped to 9:59 before handing you your turn, you could just stand there and let your time expire to end the game.

And you absolutely should do this. If they wanted another turn they would have stopped before the 10 minute mark. Their times is theirs to control.

At least this is the argument. In blitz chess if you're 1 move from checkmate but run out of time that's a loss.... this has happened to me.

I would rather see 40k move to a league based format. This way slowplaying isn't a thing because games always have as much time as they need. It would take some serious effort to organize a "United States 40k League" with standardized terrain, missions, etc, but would be really worth it in my opinion. You could have a very exclusive World-Cup style bracket at LVO for the top tier players in the league. Then games have as long as they need. Of course, this would be a huge paradigm shift in how 40k is played and i doubt it will ever happen.

I'd prefer that too - but people value their time too much. They'd rather have a 1 day crap fest than a 2 day slightly less crapfest.

I sure hope they go to 5 minutes too!

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Of all the problems with chess clocks, this is not one of them. It's your time, if your opponent dropped to 9:59 before handing you your turn, you could just stand there and let your time expire to end the game.

And you absolutely should do this. If they wanted another turn they would have stopped before the 10 minute mark. Their times is theirs to control.

At least this is the argument. In blitz chess if you're 1 move from checkmate but run out of time that's a loss.... this has happened to me.

I would rather see 40k move to a league based format. This way slowplaying isn't a thing because games always have as much time as they need. It would take some serious effort to organize a "United States 40k League" with standardized terrain, missions, etc, but would be really worth it in my opinion. You could have a very exclusive World-Cup style bracket at LVO for the top tier players in the league. Then games have as long as they need. Of course, this would be a huge paradigm shift in how 40k is played and i doubt it will ever happen.

Is there a reason you keep using blitz chess as a comparison when the two games aren't remotely comparible?

Because this thread is about implementing chess clocks in 40k. I agree they aren't comparable, and I would go further to say that this implementation is very poorly thought out, and i'm opposed to it. The fact that people think that using your time to stand there and end the game is slowplaying is hilarious. It's your time. If you want to use your time to end the game that is the way it is done. This is a direct side effect of chess clocks and it is fair in the context of a chess clock game.

My personal preference would be to cap the games at 5 turns, and keep it at 10 minutes to start a new turn. There has to be a cutoff. Having a 5 minute turn is ridiculous, I don't think 40k is a game that is meant to be played at that speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:
And if its my turn, and I see that my opponent has sub 10 min left... Then I can deliberately slow play my turn so that the game auto ends, robbing them of a turn. (not that I would, but if the rule is there, then we have already seen that people will steal entire movement phases from people in event play)

Of all the problems with chess clocks, this is not one of them. It's your time, if your opponent dropped to 9:59 before handing you your turn, you could just stand there and let your time expire to end the game.

And you absolutely should do this. If they wanted another turn they would have stopped before the 10 minute mark. Their times is theirs to control.

At least this is the argument. In blitz chess if you're 1 move from checkmate but run out of time that's a loss.... this has happened to me.

I would rather see 40k move to a league based format. This way slowplaying isn't a thing because games always have as much time as they need. It would take some serious effort to organize a "United States 40k League" with standardized terrain, missions, etc, but would be really worth it in my opinion. You could have a very exclusive World-Cup style bracket at LVO for the top tier players in the league. Then games have as long as they need. Of course, this would be a huge paradigm shift in how 40k is played and i doubt it will ever happen.

I'd prefer that too - but people value their time too much. They'd rather have a 1 day crap fest than a 2 day slightly less crapfest.

When I say league based play, I mean split up games over months. You still earn ITC points for your league games, they're just earned or lost on a game by game basis rather than tournament by tournament basis. You still have an overall competitive system. Ultimately this would also encourage good players to seek out good players, as eventually crushing newbies rewards no points. It's probably not feasible, but this would be my way of doing it. Think about how boxing is done, or, the scoring in chess.

Reemule wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


The kind of chess clock rules that ITC wants to introduce are beyond overkill to just have players play faster, they are there to disallow intentional slow playing, but if they are worried about this, then i don't understand why they also don't check every dice and every ruler in there!

Aren't warmachine and inifinity clocks the same way the ITC one is? And people don't seem to have a problem with them, they all just train more to play faster.

I think that you messed something up with the quotes.

In any case, no, they are not the same.

I read to here, when you clearly are wrong, and so I ignored the rest of your post.

Fact, they are the same.

"Your opinion is different from mine, so you are wrong and your explanations are not worthy of my time"... People like you are the reason why dakka has a bad reputation.

I never put anyone on ignore, but arguing with you is clearly worthless.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
To make sure the game ends at the end of a turn as much as possible, rather than timing out mid-turn.

Of course, since all we have is Reemule's interpretation of the rules and not the rules themselves, it could actually mean "round", which would make more sense.

Found Here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-dGUzQ3YxSG1xX3FTdy1VdXNHQXlEVkJJdEQw/view

Games end naturally depending on random game length rolls, a predetermined amount of turns, or at the end of a game turn when
neither player has GREATER than 10:00 minutes of time left on the clock.

The rule in question.

The pre-determined amount of turns should be 5. Not 6.

ValentineGames wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running

Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.

No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.


Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions

 Marmatag wrote:
My personal preference would be to cap the games at 5 turns, and keep it at 10 minutes to start a new turn. There has to be a cutoff. Having a 5 minute turn is ridiculous, I don't think 40k is a game that is meant to be played at that speed.

Quick question, Marmatag - in theory, this cut-off criteria should be coming into play late in the game, probably T4, T5, etc. How much stuff do you tend to find still exists on the board by that point, and how long do you think you'd really need to play your average turn 5?

tneva82 wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running

Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.

No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.


Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions

Oh look another one going for the "I'll turn into TFG" argument to show how to clock is a bad idea.
And like all those before you the only thing your doing is showing everyone your TFG.
And no one likes TFG.